Boral Bricks Pty Ltd, Re [2003] QLRT 131

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Boral Bricks Pty Ltd [2003] QLRT 131 PARTIES: Re Application for Mining Lease No. 50186 by Boral Bricks Pty Ltd FILE NOS: AML00015/2002 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 6 November 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 31 October 2003 PRESIDING MEMBER: Koppenol P ORDER/S: 1. Tribunal constituted by President. (at [2]) 2. Recommendation made that Application for Mining Lease No. 50186 applied for by the Applicants, be granted for the purpose, area and term applied for. (at [19]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE APPLICATION – RECOMMENDATION\ Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, ss 39,40 Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252(1), 269(4) Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 77 ALJR 356, applied COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: Zoë Farmer, for the Applicant AGENT/S: N/A Application [1] This is an application by Boral Bricks Pty Ltd (the Applicants) under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 5.9483ha area of land situated at Narangba for the mining of clay for its ceramic properties. The application was lodged with the mining registrar for the Brisbane mining district on 24 December 2001. A number of objections to the application were lodged during -- 1 of 5 -- the public objection period which ended on 28 February 2002 but they have since been struck out. Constitution of Tribunal [2] The Applicant requested that a single presiding member of the Tribunal hear the matter. I am agreeable to that course and in accordance with ss 39 and 40 of the Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, I direct that the Tribunal be constituted for this matter by me. Tribunal’s statutory function [3] In cases such as this, the Tribunal’s statutory function is under s. 269(4) of the Act—namely to take into account and consider a number of prescribed factors and then to make a recommendation to the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines as to whether the application should be granted or rejected. In doing so, I have considered all of the material that was provided to the Tribunal by the Applicant and the mining registrar, as well as the oral evidence by Mr Guerra (the Applicant’s state process manager). However these reasons refer only to such of the evidence as is relevant or necessary for my decision.1 Section 269(4) recommendation [4] Section 269(4) provides a follows: “269 Tribunal’s recommendation on hearing … (4) The tribunal, when making a recommendation to the Minister that an application for a mining lease be granted in whole or in part, shall take into account and consider whether— (a) the provisions of this Act have been complied with; and (b) the area of land applied for is mineralised or the other purposes for which the lease is sought is appropriate; and (c) if the land applied for is mineralised there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for; and (d) the land and the surface area of the land in respect of which the mining lease is sought is of an appropriate size and shape; and (e) the term sought is appropriate; and (f) the applicant has the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease; and (g) the past performance of the applicant has been satisfactory; and (h) any disadvantage my result to the rights of— (i) holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences; or (ii) existing applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences; and (i) the operations to be carried on under the authority of the proposed mining lease will conform with sound land use management; and (j) there will be any adverse environmental impact caused by those operations and, if so, the extent thereof; and (k) the public right and interest will be prejudiced; and (l) any good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease; and (m) taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of that land, the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. 1 Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 77 ALJR 356, 396 [191]. -- 2 of 5 -- … .” [5] I will deal in turn with the factors set out in section 269(4). [6] Section 269(4)(a): On 31 January 2002, the mining registrar issued a certificate of application. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the mining registrar can do so only if satisfied that the Applicant is eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the application. The Applicant has lodged with the mining registrar statutory declarations certifying compliance within the times required with the statutory requirements for notifying the application. I note that the land the subject of this application comprises freehold land and that the native title provisions of the Act are therefore not applicable. No reserve land or restricted land is involved. I am satisfied that the provisions of the Act have been complied with. [7] Section 269(4)(b): The Application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the mining of clay for its ceramic purposes. The Applicant’s Additional Information and Statutory Declaration form said that the Applicant knew that the application area was mineralised because it had conducted a drilling program (12 holes each about 25m deep) over that area, the results of which identified a resource of phyllite suitable for use in the manufacture of bricks. A geological investigation concluded that the indicated reserve of phyllite within the application area totalled about 300,000m³ (or about 600,000t). I am satisfied that the area is mineralised and that the other purposes for which the lease is sought are appropriate. [8] Section 269(4)(c): The whole of the clay resource in the application area will be used for brick manufacture. Materials from this area will be blended with material from the Applicant’s other leases in the Brisbane district to provide a long term diverse supply to the Applicant’s brick-manufacturing plant at Darra. The clay reserves are significant, such that a 30 year term is sought. I am satisfied that there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for. [9] Section 269(4)(d): The Application said that the area and shape applied for was to cover the area of the resource and allow sufficient space for associated activities such as stockpiling and loading of the product. The area applied for covers the area of the resource identified by drilling. The resource occurs on the surface of the lease and will be extracted by shallow open-pit mining (without blasting). Drainage controls and a sediment dam will also be located within the lease boundaries. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. [10] Section 269(4)(e): A term of 30 years is sought. A mining rate of about 20,000t/yr is anticipated for the resource of approximately 600,000t. The term sought is consistent with the life of Boral’s brick manufacturing operation and the term of other leases. Brick manufacture involves the blending of clays of different characteristics for a number of sources. Longer term leases, as well as numerous clay sources, allow increase flexibility in the operation and the manufacturer to respond to changing specifications and fashions. An advantage of this system is that it results in relatively small scale mining activities on each of the leases. I am satisfied that the term sought is appropriate. -- 3 of 5 -- [11] Section 269(4)(f): the Applicant, a wholly owned subsidiary of Boral Ltd, is part of the Boral Building Produces Group which has assets of over $2bn and annual sales of about the same amount. The Applicant currently holds 10 mining leases in south-east Queensland and has been operating for 35 years using its own technical personnel as well as contractors and consultants as required. I am satisfied that the Applicant has the requisite financial and technical capabilities. [12] Section 269(4)(g): The Applicant has never had a mining show cause notice, mining tenure cancelled, penalty or conviction under the Act. [13] Section 269(4)(h): The evidence indicates that there are no such underlying tenures which are not held by the Applicant. No disadvantage will therefore result. [14] Section 269(4)(i): The application area is located within a key resource area identified by the Department of State Development. The area is currently dispersed bushland and contains reserves of hardrock material that are important to the development of Brisbane and surrounding areas. I am satisfied that operating a small scale clay mine is compatible with quarrying activities in the area and it consistent with sound land use management. [15] Section 269(4)(j): The mining activities will be carried out in accordance with the draft environmental authority (mining activities) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Applicant must comply with the numerous environmental conditions set out in that document and also identify and manage any adverse environmental impacts to standards acceptable to the EPA. The Applicant has also entered into agreements with the former objectors to the application and has given undertakings relating to environmental management; these undertakings exceed the requirements of the standard environmental authority. I am not satisfied that there will such an environmental impact caused by the proposed mining operations as to warrant an unfavourable recommendation in the present application. [16] Section 269(4)(k): The Applicant has entered into agreements with the former objectors to the application, one of the Applicant’s undertakings in which is to participate in a liaison committee and wider community forum (where the Caboolture Shire Council and the representatives of the former objectors can be informed of operations and have the opportunity to comment and make recommendations about minimising the impact on the public right and interest). The forum has already met on 2 occasions and the results have apparently been positive. The mined clay resource is to be trucked to Darra. In the Narangba area, residential streets will be traversed. Many large trucks (some 60 to 250 per day) already use these streets for similar purposes. This new mining operation will add about 3 to 6 trips per day to the truck traffic in the area. However the Applicant’s periods of operation will be determined having regard to school bus routes, school terms and holidays and the level of activity at the quarry. There was no evidence before me that indicated that the public right and interest would be prejudiced. -- 4 of 5 -- [17] Section 269(4)(l): There was no evidence before me that indicated any good reason why this Application should be refused. Although a large number of objections to the mining lease were initially received, most of the issues raised have been addressed in the agreements that the Applicant has entered into with the former objectors. [18] Section 269(4)(m): On the basis of the evidence and other material referred to above, I consider that the proposed activity is an appropriate land use. Compliance with the conditions of the draft environmental authority will ensure that environmental impacts will be managed in a manner authorised by the EPA. The proposed clay mine is located within a key resource area where hardrock quarrying provides a vital resource to the development of the region. Recommendation [19] Taking into account all of the evidence and other material before me and in particular that referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that Application for Mining Lease No. 40186, applied for by the Applicant for the mining of clay for its ceramic properties, be granted over the whole of the application area (5.9583ha) for the term of 30 years. -- 5 of 5 --